Comment by Ron Guignard
Alex Bainbridge's "Self-sufficiency or self-determination?" (GLW #262), quotes Ted Trainer's thesis: our planet can't sustain our consumption now, let alone the 10-fold increase needed if all people in the world of 2060 were to use up as much as we in rich countries do.
He goes on to say: "Socialists argue that a society free of the profit motive ... can be built only on the basis of abundance of the things people consume". It seems Alex doesn't believe Ted. We can't get to Alex's goal if Ted's thesis is right. But Alex clearly thinks we can't start socialism without "abundance".
I think Ted gravely underestimates. Even in rich countries we still have many poor people. Suppose we right now gave them "abundance", in equality with only the moderately affluent. That would double or treble what we use now. To bring the rest of the world to this standard, given the forecast increase in people, would increase usage 20- or 30-fold, not 10-fold, in 2060.
Granted, Alex has his get-out clause. "Excluding lavish luxuries", he says.
Such value judgments clearly must be made. What Ted says is that we're not just dumping our own Rolls-Royces, ocean-going yachts and executive jets. He's saying we need a usage level short of what many people, influenced by capitalist advertising, see as their needs.
I stick to fairly basic Marxism and abhor most of its revisions. However, I feel that this "abundance" idea is one that must be got rid of. In my view, it was always a non sequitur. These days, I see a Marxism that offers "pie in the sky by and by" being as culpable as capitalist TV advertising.
Suppose, however, that there is a quick techno-fix that will let us produce and share out current needs in abundance. We'll still need another bigger and quicker techno-fix to deal with all the added pollution, including the extra people's excrement.
It's a very glib thing to say that waste should be recycled at source — mines, factories etc. We might even make pollutants serve a useful purpose. But their recovery costs energy. Think, too, of the lead time we'll need to build each new non-polluting factory or sink each new non-polluting mine.
Alex says, "Reducing consumption ... has been thrust further into the spotlight as part of the current debate about immigration". The biggest techno-fix we'll soon need in Australia is to make our water go round. It can barely serve our people now.
Alex says, "One of the problems with small-scale neighbourhood production is that it can't produce very much. ... (industry) is much more productive and, potentially, requires less effort". Talk to people in permaculture and edible landscapes, Alex, not to agribusiness and its failed "green revolution".
There's one third of your basic needs, to be got using small scale. It takes little work after the first seven years. It also doesn't pollute. On the contrary, it can be used to mitigate neighbouring pollution.
Well set-up permaculture and edible landscaping can contribute to wealth distribution. It has been shown to be more efficient in product per worker hour than traditional agriculture. The expertise, too, can be exported. Suburban local governments in many parts of the world back it.
Another one third of our basic needs is housing. How about housing cooperatives?
Tenants pay rent at 20-25% of income. Rents includes three components. One services debt to the state government. A second is for major maintenance costs. The third covers materials for minor maintenance and administration costs.
Granted, you can't usefully make steel on a small scale. Mao found that out in his "great leap forward". But control can still be localised. The soviets of workers and soldiers deputies worked well early in the Russian Revolution. If the slogan "All power to the soviets" had been upheld, who knows what might have happened?
One thing Alex does not make clear. How do we deal with the nitty gritty of fair distribution of goods and work? He rightly objects to Ted's "substantial cash sector". He fears that it would wind up as a growing capitalist sector. The state as exploiter is also out — no more Stalins. It's time we gave some serious thought to how we should do this.
Each person is the product of everything that has happened to and around them in their whole lives. How we perceive each thing that happens is mediated by all that has gone before. We are probably more complex than weather patterns. Chaos theory tells us that the beat of a butterfly's wings in Tokyo can be the root cause of a tropical hurricane in Florida.
How affluent or poor we are does not determine the empathy we feel for others. If you don't have that empathy the "science" in Marxism can't attract you.
That's because alienation through capitalism is very deep seated. Even if we could produce goods in abundance without over-pollution or running out, it could take a generation or six to ensure that everybody was fully keen to share work and goods equitably.
Which leads to the fundamental problem. How are we going to change people's attitudes? I see no quick Marxist techno-fix here.
Instead, I see our unwavering support of all oppressed people within reach. I see our valuing their experiences and listening to what they say about what they need. I see our giving a Marxist explanation to them of why and how they are oppressed, at a level they can understand.
We can be sure that the capitalist system will drive more and more of them into our arms. All we have to do is not drive them away again. We must not involve them in acts driven by the arrogance of hair splitting doctrines. We must listen to them as well as talk to them. We must not promise them what we can never deliver.